Petitioner Must File Formal Application to Claim Ownership of Seized Goods Under Section 129 of CGST Act

HC ruled that the petitioner must file a formal application with the competent officer to assert ownership of seized goods under Section 129 of the C.G.S.T Act 2017. The court directed a fair hearing process, emphasizing procedural compliance without prejudging the merits of the case. The seizure order's validity and jurisdictional issues were left for the competent authority to determine.

---

---

Issues:
1. Validity of seizure order under Section 129 of the C.G.S.T Act 2017.
2. Jurisdiction of the authority to proceed under Section 129(3) of the C.G.S.T Act 2017.
3. Notice under Section 129 issued in the name of the driver despite the petitioner's claim of ownership.
4. Requirement for the petitioner to approach the competent officer with a proper application regarding ownership of seized goods.

Analysis:

1. Validity of Seizure Order:
The petitioner, a registered dealer under the G.S.T Act engaged in supplying mixed scrap, challenged the seizure of goods during transit. The petitioner argued that the seizure was based on false grounds, as the goods were accompanied by a valid tax invoice and e-Way bill. The court noted that the dispute regarding the validity of the seizure order could not be determined at that stage, as the Form GST MOV-07 indicated a fake sale. The court directed the petitioner to approach the competent authority with a detailed application asserting ownership of the seized goods for further proceedings.

2. Jurisdiction under Section 129(3) of the C.G.S.T Act 2017:
The petitioner contended that the detention order was illegal, questioning the authority's jurisdiction to proceed under Section 129(3) of the C.G.S.T Act 2017. The court did not delve into the merits of this argument but directed the petitioner to submit a formal application to the competent officer regarding ownership of the seized goods. The court emphasized that all proceedings under Section 129 should involve giving the petitioner a fair opportunity to be heard.

3. Notice Issued in Driver's Name:
Despite the petitioner's claim of ownership submitted to the revenue department, a notice under Section 129 was issued in the driver's name. The court acknowledged the petitioner's contention that all proceedings under Section 129 should involve the petitioner after asserting ownership. The court directed the petitioner to file a proper application with the competent officer to address this discrepancy and ensure due process in the proceedings.

4. Requirement to Approach Competent Officer:
The court disposed of the petition with an instruction for the petitioner to approach the competent officer with a formal application asserting ownership of the seized goods. Emphasizing the need for due process, the court directed the competent officer to grant the petitioner an opportunity for a hearing in accordance with the provisions of Section 129(3) of the C.G.S.T Act 2017. The court clarified that its decision did not imply a judgment on the merits of the petitioner's claim.

---